Looks pretty good. Now they just need some fast autofocus primes ( or can you do that with the A mount adaptor ? ) and to fix the 'highlight roll-off ' issue ( is this the same sensor as FS100 ? ). I am more than interested, mostly because of the form factor, the built in ND's, and the useable autofocus.

Well, since the latest Sony dslrs generations, although almost every pro here is on Canon, I started to suspect that Sony was going the right way. They go fast and it seems that they understand the potential huge market, the socio-economical situation and the evolution of the business and mentalities more than the competition.

One spec that may be missed by the casual observer is this is a 8-bit camera, & only 4k RAW will be 12-bit.

Makes one wonder if a 4k F3 is on the way.

I didn't missed it. After the 8 bit bandings saga I'm now sort of obsessive with it. Bern, very fine Hack you posted (the latest you posted some time ago in the hack section). It solved a lot of issues I had. Totally reliable on set. Zero crash. Thanks very much for the tip.

I did think from my ignorant point of view, 4k would be the way for me to go. More future proof, more quality for me to throw away in post. Now I'm not so sure, all that disc space getting gobbled up, the computing power etc. In reality I will not be shooting for cinema screens and still there is a lot broadcast that is not even HD. So quality HD looks right for me now. In fact the Canon 300C hits a lot of spots for me, weight size quality. But I always thought it was almost outdated when it arrived, what it has is great, also what is missing is glaringly obvious. It felt like a toe in the water to test the market, a range finding shot so to speak. Canon just fell short of the mark for no obvious technical reason, so £10k for a body I don't think will be around for very long looks a bit steep.I would expect the 300C to either get a serious upgrade or fall in price to compete with the Sony, if Canon want people to buy into their system that ought to be sooner rather than later.

Photons are weired particules indeed and I don't really know what are the parameters involved that produce banding. Maybe Graeme from Red could help us to understand if he sees this. The fact is that not all 8 bits camera produce the same amount of banding.

I saw some FS100 footage with serious banding, other from the same model (but not the same camera) with no banding at all. (not talking here about the Vimeo convertions that always produce banding). There are no 2 5D2 that behave exactly similar with this.Same with the GH2. Some users experienced stronger banding than others.

I had an issue with it on my unit. I was about to give-up and change camera brand when Bern posted a hack that was supposed to be good. I tried it as an ultimate chance and miraculously the banding issue disappeared. Now I have a "new" camera that relegate the 5D2 to stone age, and that with a couple of firmware tricking ?! (when other hacks didn't solve it). Try to understand why is like trying to understand the dark energy.It would only show-up now in some very rare situations and the performances in low-light have been increased too. But I wouldn't be surprise if another user with a GH2 would have a totally different experience.

Some users have been exposed the sensor to sun during hours (on another problem) and it cured the camera issue forever...that's more psychadelic than Jimmy Hendrix playing on acid but truth. I think we are in quantum physics here...

It seems to me that electronic is very temperamental and not always predictible and within a same model, there are indeed variations for better or for worse.

I wouldn't trust on 8 bits cameras the fact that one model doesn't have it. Maybe you buy a FS100 #2 back-up and you'd posterize. Maybe not.Maybe the external climate plays a role, maybe even the magnetic field of a location, but those 8 bits cameras are very sensitive, too much IMO.

It will be nice to hear an engineer on that topic.

------

Kevin,

I agree with you about the 4K.

But the think is that, even if it's not necessary, if pros start to shoots 4K, clients will ask..."but X does it in 4K".

That's the problem IMO. We may not need 4K, but if it becomes a practise standart, need or not, you'll have pressure to shoot at this resolution.

But the think is that, even if it's not necessary, if pros start to shoots 4K, clients will ask..."but X does it in 4K".

That's the problem IMO. We may not need 4K, but if it becomes a practise standart, need or not, you'll have pressure to shoot at this resolution.

Unless some client demands 4k/5k capture and processing, I don't put much thought in it.

Sure, when I sell, I like others have mentioned future proof footage, but really our job and careers rests on shooting imagery that doesn't have 20 year shelf life.

Our roll is to produce new imagery . . . that's where the money is.

The 2k to 4k thing right now is kind of funny, because I'll bet 90% of all Red footage taken out of Cinex, is probably in 2k, most of it probably in prorezz 422.

Digital is different than film. 16mm looks small and grainy, (usually( 35mm looks smooth and rich (usually) but digital can be about anything with export post work.

Act of valor is shot mostly with 5d2's and it's beautiful, though I've heard they spent two years in post.

What I worry about with the 4k thing from a post production standpoint is if client's demand 4k/5k edits but we still downsize to 2k for viewing, we are going to increase our workload and rendering times by more than double for no real reason.

This is above my pay grade, but the world is turning to streaming video that originates through the web and is projected on everything from ipads to 40" screens.

The new I pad has what a 3k across screen, so will we all start editing in 3k? Do we need to. Do we want to?

In regards to cameras, just like still cameras, each one has it's place. I love the look of the RED's can now emulate that look with a Sony, but doesn't mean for safety and to impress on set the RED's won't be used, it just means I own them so I use what I own.

I think we all know that file sizes will increase because just like stills megapixels sell, but the difference between motion and stills is working a 40mpx still image on even a lowly G5 is not a chore, doing 4k editing on a older machine can be a nightmare, heck it can be a nightmare on a newer machine.

As far as banding, well, every camera can band, every camera can moire. I see less moire in the RED's than the Sony, but a little softer image also.

...What I worry about with the 4k thing from a post production standpoint is if client's demand 4k/5k edits but we still downsize to 2k for viewing, we are going to increase our workload and rendering times by more than double for no real reason...

Exactly. That's the dilema.

In Edius, wich handles the CPU very well, I had yesterday a 4K project and it slows like hell in real time so I had no other option than transcode to HQX to edit at ease. But it's a transcoding time consuming. And then re-link etc etc...and all that to go to DVD or to H.264 ? It makes no sense.

In the same idea, I wonder those 8 bit vs 10 bit mystic for grading. I always edited so far in 10 bits just not to loose more infos and suposedly the degradation is way worse when it comes to grading...well, I can't see the magical benefits of boosting to 10 bits but yes the file size is much bigger. I did testings and can't see anything different in 99% of the situations.

One day I did blind tests of P2 files, uncompressed QT, HQX, DNxHD, XDcam and a part from slightly differences in gamma, in terms of quality I was unable to detect wich was wich. And the differences in file size were huge.

"...One day I did blind tests of P2 files, uncompressed QT, HQX, DNxHD, XDcam and a part from slightly differences in gamma, in terms of quality I was unable to detect wich was wich. And the differences in file size were huge..."

Fred, that's really interesting. I'm too busy right now to do my own tests but a little while ago I compared a few vid cams in a studio and the real, outside world and concluded that it's what you shoot, how you shoot it and then how you post it that matters most. Not 100%, but mostly.

Having been through the MFD vs DSLR stills hoops, and hopefully learnt from it, I bought a Canon 305XF to get max DOF and will soon get a second camera, equally sensibly priced, for getting minimum DOF. I could have bought at a higher price range, much higher according to my bank manager (now surely I should have trusted his judgement...) but I thought, why? I don't shoot for cinema, the 305 is good for broadcast, why spend more? I'll test again and apply the same criteria: I'll get the cheapest cam that let's me shoot what I want, how I want and can stand up in post. Even if it turns out to be a used FS100. (I know I'll need to check I can match the shots for colour, etc.)

Well, after worrying about what camera to get non stop since Nov. 4th. I bought a C300. My heart ached for a Red One, not so much for a Scarlet. But my head won out. For me. i know all of my work will be displayed on the web, or in store display not in a cinema. I got it last week on Thursday and shot a youtube smartphone ad for a national company the next day. No problems. Everything worked just as it should have. When the job was done, i handed one of two copies of my CF card to the client at the agency, and they went on their way with it to hand over to the After effects boys. I mentioned Red to them and they looked at me like i was mad. Yeah, i think this camera costs too much and does too little. But, it is a rock solid performer, easy to use and very well thought out. And, the footage looks good. Solid, maybe not as pretty as graded red, but solid. And, the whole system is looking good.All my lenses fit right on it, the new canon cine lenses will be out this summer in EF mount . They will be widely available to rent.the Ziess CP2's are very nice and have a EF mount. I can live with out autofocus, but canon has something coming for a smartphone or ipad that will focus the camera. Also, the i.s. function is brilliant! I'm sure the sonys are great cameras, and the footage i have seen from them is amazing. But, the guy at my local camera store tossed one in a box to me on a Friday afternoon and told me to take it for the weekend. I tried to shoot with it, but it was just too strange of a form for me. It looked like it was somehow three seperate parts, with a lens sticking out . I couldn't get past it. Now it's time to get on with my life and stop obsessing about cameras and get to shooting. I'll be happy with the C300 for a few years .I'm still dreaming of a Red One to someday just to shoot beautiful film like footage though. Thanks,Timwww.tjphoto.net

The C300 is almost an exact modern copy in terms of design as the 35mm film Konvas 2, wich IMO is one of the best design-ergonomics ever acheived for a portable cine camera.I'm not surprised you liked the handling.

the c300 will work with a new wireless transmitter that's coming with the 1Dx .here's the dope from canon :

What are some of the capabilities when the WFT-E6 is combined with the EOS C300?Outstanding remote control possibilities, using nearly any web-enabled "smart-phone" or digital pad. Some of the camera controls which are possible include: